Net zero is a trade union issue

This year’s TUC Conference in Brighton showed the rising tension between an ideological support of net zero and the real-world effects on workers. A life-long trade unionist contacted Workers with this observation on one significant debate that took place.

Defending workers

I believe that the central role of trade unions is to protect workers in struggle, defend their jobs and improve working conditions. “Protecting the planet” should not be a policy objective of an organisation which is part of the labour movement.

One motion to be debated at the conference caught my attention, so I made sure that I watched the debate. The specific part of the motion which I thought was key was also the part which provoked inevitable dissent.

Five trade unions moved and supported the composited motion, while three speakers from different trade unions spoke against it. For me, these were the key points:

• “Congress agrees to do everything in its power to prevent oil and gas workers becoming the miners of net zero.”
• “We will not let them suffer the equivalent of the coal closures, which broke the back of mining towns across the UK.”

Our future hangs in the balance

The mover of the motion made it clear that “the future of over 30,000 oil and gas jobs hangs in the balance”. He spoke passionately about the need to remember the devastation to jobs and local communities (referencing the miners’ strike from 40 years ago) that can happen if industries close.

“The path to net zero will end up as a path to nowhere”.

He also reminded the conference correctly that “we are going to need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future”. Jobs in these industries in the UK, he argued, should be fought for, otherwise the jobs and the industries will just continue overseas. “The path to net zero”, he warned, “will end up as a path to nowhere.”

In response to those who want to ban fossil fuels – and those who spoke against the motion clearly want to – he stated quite simply and effectively, “No ban, without a plan”.

Detachment

Other speakers backed up these arguments. But those who opposed the motion showed their ignorance of, and detachment from, the real-world struggles of working class communities fighting to defend their livelihoods. The comparison with the miners’ strike was therefore appropriate.

One opposing speaker stated “there are no jobs on a dead planet”, instantly diminishing with a rhetorical and scientifically unsupportable flourish the needs of working class communities to a secondary consideration.

They also added to the climate apocalypse-ism by asserting, “we can’t avert the crisis”. I find this a strange thing to claim as part of a movement which clearly exists to support and increase the agency of workers.

Devastated

Another delegate who opposed the motion couldn’t seem to grasp why the movers had made the comparison with the miners. It seemed obvious to me and perhaps it would to many others. Mining communities, like the ones my family are from, were devastated by the closure of the pits. Closing down other fossil fuel industries like oil and gas would bring the same fate to oil and gas communities.

He also said that “we have to identify who is the main enemy… and it’s not the environmental movement”. This is where I think those opposing the motion were totally wrong. Make no bones about it, net zero legislation is Tory legislation brought in by an extension to the Climate Act 2008 as a sort of bizarre leaving present to Theresa May.

With this target-driven law as a backdrop the environmentalist movement constantly argues for measures which will impoverish and diminish the lives of the working class. This ought to be directly contrary to the aims of the trade union movement.

‘Such miserabilist views of the future should not be a feature of contemporary trade unionism.’

The final speaker ramped up climate fear even further, by referring in general to catastrophes with no reference to supporting evidence. They then accused those who might support the motion of a “collective suicide pact” and “holding all of us to ransom”. Such miserabilist views of the future should not be a feature of contemporary trade unionism.

In the end the majority voted for jobs and communities but it was a close run thing! A remarkably close vote by a show of hands was narrowly declared in favour of the motion by the chair. But after a vocal outcry, a card count was called. This itself is a rare event. At the Congress one delegate’s vote can represent thousands of workers, and so the vote which eventually passed the motion was:

• In favour: 2,712,000
• Against: 2,457,000

A tense vote, some uncontested rhetoric, but good sense and speeches with a positive vision in defence of jobs and communities won the day.

Our reader aims to contribute to the debate on net zero and influence it in a positive direction, as does Workers. This piece is taken from his blog, which you’ll find here.

The whole debate can be seen on YouTube here.